Talk:Shipston-on-Stour

Well this keeps moving into Worcestershire for some reason, when Google says it's in Warwickshire. See User talk:G-Man Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 21:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Map shows that it is in the traditional county of Worcestershire. Article also states that it is administratively in Warwickshire. The article look a lot less stubbish with the map, too. I don't see anything disputable. 80.255 21:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looking at Naming conventions (places), the acceptable wording would seem to be something along the lines of "Shipston-on-Stour is a town in Warwickshire, and is within the traditional borders of Worcestershire". Proteus (Talk) 21:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "traditional borders" and "traditional county" mean exactly the same thing, only the latter is slightly more precise, and can be linked to the appropriate article, as is the case here. Thus the wording is indeed acceptable. Administrative use of the word "county" is not in parentheses. You will notice that the last example of unacceptable practice is implying that a county, which explicitly continued to exist following 1888, was abolished. And Shipston-on-Stour could only cease to be Worcestershire if this had been the case. Thus stating that it is not in this traditional county is unacceptable according to policy. 80.255 22:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Yawn, weve been through this before many times. Policy states clearly

''We should use the current, administrative, county. E.g. Eton is in Berkshire, not Buckinghamshire.''

End of story

Your fixation with traditional counties is obsessional to the point of being disturbing. G-Man 22:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We are using the administrative county; the article (naming conventions) means that this article is not named Shipston-on_stour, Worcestershire. The one line that you quote doesn't really give much practical advice on the policy in question. It is far more enlightening to examine the acceptable and unacceptable examples given.
 * Policy clearly states that
 * Middlesex was a county of England
 * is unacceptable. Thus is it unacceptable to state that middlesex is no longer a county. Yet this county is certainly not an administrative unit. Neither is the Worcestershire that contains Shipston-on-Stour. Thus it is equally unacceptable to refer to this traditional county in the past tense, or otherwise imply that it has ceased to exist.
 * Let's look at what is acceptable:
 * Middlesex is a traditional county of England
 * Thus is is equally acceptable and within policy to state that Worcestershire is a traditional county of England - and it would be obviously absurd to accept this yet insist that nothing lies with the traditional county of Worcestershire! One such place that lies within it is Shipston-on-Stour.
 * It would be unacceptable if I were to put the incidences of the word "county" in reference to administrative Warwickshire in "scare-quotes" - but I am not. Since the policy itself refers to administrative counties as the entities article-naming should involve, it is right that the term administrative county be used when reference is made to them.
 * This article states that
 * 1) the town is in Warwickshire (administratively)
 * 2) it is in the traditional county of Worcestershire
 * Thus, policy is followed!
 * Rather than throwing about silly exclamations of 'obsessionalism', stop trying to eradicate all references to traditional counties in a manner that is exemplified as being unacceptable and follow the policy! 80.255 23:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please stop selectively mis-quoting and distorting the policy page, this is not what people voted for and you know that perfectly well. Your version of the Shipston page is not acceptable end-of-story. G-Man 23:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It is you who are distorting policy to meet your own opinion, and you know it very well yourself. Saying "X isn't acceptable" is not an acceptable dialogue, particularly when I have explained logically how it is, using clear exmaples from what policy says is acceptable to support my position. Either logically counter my argument stop changing. It is against policy to continually revert whilst refusing to discuss and defend your changes in a logical way in talk. I have offered detailed argument for my changes, and shown that they are perfectly in line with policy. You have done no such thing. Either argue your reverts in a logical and consistent way by countering my argument point by point, or stop reverting my changes! To continue blindly reverting and refusing to discuss and argue your changes is a far more serious breach of policy than anything you accuse me of. 80.255 23:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a very clear policy which your edits are contravening. To quote from it: We should mention historic counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote.  If you wish to dispute the policy, then you should do so at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places), not by editing individual articles so that they do not comply with it.  Saying "X isn't acceptable" is perfectly reasonable in this case, where X clearly contravenes policy. Warofdreams 13:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a very clear policy that mentioning of historic counties is acceptable and claiming that they were abolished is unacceptable.
 * Examples of acceptable things:
 * ''Middlesex is a traditional county of England
 * Examples of unacceptable things:
 * ''Middlesex was a county of England. It was abolished in 1965
 * Thus it is completely within policy to say XYZ is in the traditional county of Middlesex. Similarly, it is completely acceptable to say XYZ is in the traditional county of Worcestershire.
 * The convention is largely concerned with how articles are named, and it states the administrative counties should be used as qualifiers in article names - thus XYZ, Middlesex would would not be acceptable under this policy. This is not a dispute about naming. This is not a dispute about replacing administrative information with traditional counties. Reference to the administrative county appears first in the article. In an article of this size, the concept of what consitutes an "after note" (however you define that) has little meaning. Saying that Shipston-on_stour lies within the traditional county of Worcestershire is totally within this policy and it is clearly not contravening it in any way. The examples of unacceptable things given by the policy also makes it clear that reference to "former counties" or use of the past tense to describe traditional counties is unacceptable (and indeed completel illogical, since traditional county is a term used to describe entities that exist). G-Man is attempting to do this in direct contravention to the example above given as part of the policy to describe unacceptable usage. 80.255 15:45, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I was just going by what's further down that page:
 * Examples of acceptable things:
 * Coventry is in the West Midlands, and within the traditional borders of Warwickshire
 * Proteus (Talk) 23:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Map used
Can I just point out that the map used on this page, although from a 19th century Encyclopedia is a John Cary published in 1787? I can tell because of the style used. Compare this Cary map of Bucks dated the same year. -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 15:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The style is completely different, and the map looks nothing like any of Cary's. Have a look at the whole map and compare to as many examples of cary's work as you like. This map was published in 1888. You will note, if you compare to to a Cary map of Worcestershire, that the county lacks the exclave of Iccomb (locally in gloucestershire), a large enclave of warwickshire and a smaller enclave of Herefordshire, all administratively affected in 1844. The style of the map is completely different, and rather more precise than Cary, too. It may have a long-evolved basis in a Cary work, but it shows the situation in 1888, not 1787. I can only suggest you look at a lot more Cary maps and get more of a feel for them; I've looked at dozens. 80.255 15:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Plus, it's got railway lines on it: has to be the second half of the 19th century to have that sort of extensive network, I'd have thought. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 18:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sports
I thought i would add something about sports in the town. TomBelton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.61.83.76 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shipston-on-Stour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133150/http://clubs.rfu.com/Fixtures/MatchByDivision.aspx?DivID=222800481 to http://clubs.rfu.com/Fixtures/MatchByDivision.aspx?DivID=222800481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shipston-on-Stour. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719163305/http://www.warksbells.co.uk/shipston.htm to http://www.warksbells.co.uk/shipston.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)